A lot people think Grant Morrisons and Joss Whedon were some of best writers for the X-Men. I think they were pretty much overrated. While Morrisons portray Emma Frost really well, the best I have seen from her character so far. I felt he had no understanding of Cyclops and Jean Grey marriage and I didn't think he understood Cylcops character at all and he made him look like a total jerk as well. Then Whedon, while the portrayal of the characters was written well, like the interactions with kitty and Emma, they were really good. The stories he wrote was nothing really special and while he return Colossus, he sent Kitty packing, make sense much.

So are they overrated, are they actually better writers, then the writers from the 80's and the early-mid 90's. How many of you think so?

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay
 
Joss Whedon wrote an incredible super hero story, and a really good X-men story...not incredible
 
I believe no one wrote the X-Men like Claremont did...and no one can...of course..this is just my opinion

@cattlebattle said:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay Joss Whedon wrote an incredible super hero story, and a really good X-men story...not incredible I believe no one wrote the X-Men like Claremont did...and no one can...of course..this is just my opinion

I really agree with you. I just re-read most of the Claremont run on Uncanny and was reminded of how seriously gifted that dude was. Entire issues being carried by Forge and Banshee and still being interesting to read. That right there is talent!

@cattlebattle said:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay Joss Whedon wrote an incredible super hero story, and a really good X-men story...not incredible I believe no one wrote the X-Men like Claremont did...and no one can...of course..this is just my opinion

I really agree with you. I just re-read most of the Claremont run on Uncanny and was reminded of how seriously gifted that dude was. Entire issues being carried by Forge and Banshee and still being interesting to read. That right there is talent!

No, they were just that good.

Eh, underrated, overrated, its all relative to the reference point you use. I have always found them to be a bit of both. Claremont included as well. The thing about comparing creators as well as far as these things, is it helps known the mood of the comic book industry as well and its fans, and its contemporaries, as well as knowing what you like as a fan, what others like, and what the majority likes. Grant Morrison is pretty straight forward about his inspirations and influences and there are lots of books on him as well, similarly Joss Whedon and he has lots of material you can run over with a fine tooth comb. Morrison's success in comics is in taking a lot of outside materials and mediums and infusing into comics into ways others aren't doing, and quite a lot of people find success with doing this in any medium, and Morrison does this in a way that resonates well with a large group and other writers not as much (lots of smart intellectual indy writers covering similar themes)  
 
CC was writing to a narrower audience and at the same time, brining in new types of originality and creativity other writers couldn't match. His extremely long period writing the books didn't hurt. In this sense you can compare X-Men to being his Buffy. If Grant Morrison wrote a Season of Buffy now, just one, would he be known as the better Buffy writer or... what about people who never watched original Buffy episodes or don't consider the time and era it was made for?  
 
I think Morrison understood the Cyclops and Jean characters extremely well. So well he wanted to emphasis and focus on previously minor aspects of them and draw them out because he knew that doing such would inject X-Men with freshness and draw in a lot of new readers who previously considered the characters boring or too plain, etc other common criticisms. Total jerk is always relative. Oh and he did this with a few characters as well.  
 
So depends. Depends on a few things. 

I also have to agree that Claremont was my favorite X-Men writer. And, I also didn't appreciate Morrison turning Cyclops into such a jerk. I agree that he did not have a great grasp on Scott-Jean's marriage.

Personally, no, I don't think either writer is overrated. Morrison did something completely different with the X-Men. He changed the whole thought processing behind it. He tackled bigger ideas and explored further. I think he should be highly credited for taking the X-Men somewhere they had never been, and made them shine. As for Whedon, he did the opposite nearly. In my opinion, Whedon focused very carefully on the characters primarily, which is my favourite type of writing. One where the characters come first. Because if the characters are written well, if their portrayals make sense, if it all fits, then everything else will form around it.

@cattlebattle:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay

My guess is he was trying to advance the character. Play on some other factors. I see the X-Men as the perfect characters to be dealing with such things, as the are the poster-"boys" for diversity, especially during Grant's run where he was really stretching out the characters and the way they reacted and sat with each other.

@cattlebattle:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay

My guess is he was trying to advance the character. Play on some other factors. I see the X-Men as the perfect characters to be dealing with such things, as the are the poster-"boys" for diversity, especially during Grant's run where he was really stretching out the characters and the way they reacted and sat with each other.

Morrison took an approach that I think was kind of necessary. The X-Men writers, post-Claremont, spent too much time mining Clarmont's foundation for story material & character development. The series became a caricature of itself, & devolved into just another super-team series. Morrison came to the series, bold as brass, & re-set the focus. I think it's kind of telling that he chose Professor X, Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, & Wolverine as his X-Men. He largely avoids the Claremont era... & inevitable comparisons... by featuring the 60's era X-Men, with Wolverine & The White Queen standing in for Angel & Iceman. It ends up coming across as an almost "John Byrne Back to Basics" return to the X-Men's roots. Once again, stories revolve around seeking out new mutants. The school becomes much more prominent in the story lines. Magneto is an absolute villain, no shades of grey. It's the Silver Age X-Men as seen through Morrison's twisted mirror. Saying his run is overrated is a bit unjust. People continue to talk about it because it stood out. It was different. It was fresh. It was weird. It introduced big ideas, which the series was fresh out of. Morrison's run had it's flaws, but it was never boring.

In contrast, Whedon wrote the characters right. For the first time, in years, Cyclops sounded like Cyclops. Kitty sounded like Kitty. Too many writers come up with a "take" on the character, as I think Morrison did, as opposed to actually writing the established character. There's really no excuse for not writing the character as they have been written, especially when said characters are as well defined as the X-Men are. Morrison is an idea man. His stories are largely more important than the characters within them. Whedon though is big on character, & it shows in his run. Whedon's X-Men felt like Claremont's X-Men. Personally, I wasn't impressed with Whedon's stories. They were okay. Not particularly memorable, but serviceable. His character moments, though, are truly wonderful.

Had X-Men been a consistently awesome series since Claremont's departure, Morrison & Whedon's runs might have gone unnoticed. They would have been what the fans had come to expect from the X-men title. Just more of the same. That they stand out... to this day... speaks to a malaise in fan's regard for the series. They were bored with it. Morrison woke them up with a 2x4 smack to the brain pan. Whedon reminded them why they loved the characters in the first place. They left the X-Men in a better place than where they found it. I think both men deserve the credit they get.

@cattlebattle said:

@Hawkeye446 said:

@cattlebattle:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay

My guess is he was trying to advance the character. Play on some other factors. I see the X-Men as the perfect characters to be dealing with such things, as the are the poster-"boys" for diversity, especially during Grant's run where he was really stretching out the characters and the way they reacted and sat with each other.

I agree with what you say, although I think when they try to advance characters with subtle contradictory factors It just comes off more like shock value then it does crafty writing, I mean I am no writer, so I always feel I have no right making criticisms like these, I get what your saying about them being poster boys, but I think that is a very long running theme throughout the X-men, especially emphasized with Morrisons run...that they are not perfect, like so many other super heroes that come off, you know, like squeaky clean boy scouts, The X-Men are far from this, including Beast. I have no problem with Beast being gay, I guess the I feel like that kind of came out of left field, I guess everyone else thought so due to him being paired up with Brand not to long after that

Oh yes, I agree. I was just trying to justify the decision in some way. I think you are right, for sure. To change a characters preferences, when it was never asserted beforehand can seem like lazy writing. But, I think in Grant's case, he had interpreted it that way. What I mean to say is, from what he knew of Beast, he thought it would be beneficial growth? Do you get what I mean? So as opposed to changing his orientation, he was trying to assert Hank as a better character by emphasising his orientation.

In other words, play true to Hank's personality and his personal view of the character. I think Morrison did that with most of the X-Men, mixed things up a bit with his own viewpoints, as one does.

@chalkshark said:

Morrison took an approach that I think was kind of necessary. The X-Men writers, post-Claremont, spent too much time mining Clarmont's foundation for story material & character development. The series became a caricature of itself, & devolved into just another super-team series. Morrison came to the series, bold as brass, & re-set the focus. I think it's kind of telling that he chose Professor X, Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, & Wolverine as his X-Men. He largely avoids the Claremont era... & inevitable comparisons... by featuring the 60's era X-Men, with Wolverine & The White Queen standing in for Angel & Iceman. It ends up coming across as an almost "John Byrne Back to Basics" return to the X-Men's roots. Once again, stories revolve around seeking out new mutants. The school becomes much more prominent in the story lines. Magneto is an absolute villain, no shades of grey. It's the Silver Age X-Men as seen through Morrison's twisted mirror. Saying his run is overrated is a bit unjust. People continue to talk about it because it stood out. It was different. It was fresh. It was weird. It introduced big ideas, which the series was fresh out of. Morrison's run had it's flaws, but it was never boring.

In contrast, Whedon wrote the characters right. For the first time, in years, Cyclops sounded like Cyclops. Kitty sounded like Kitty. Too many writers come up with a "take" on the character, as I think Morrison did, as opposed to actually writing the established character. There's really no excuse for not writing the character as they have been written, especially when said characters are as well defined as the X-Men are. Morrison is an idea man. His stories are largely more important than the characters within them. Whedon though is big on character, & it shows in his run. Whedon's X-Men felt like Claremont's X-Men. Personally, I wasn't impressed with Whedon's stories. They were okay. Not particularly memorable, but serviceable. His character moments, though, are truly wonderful.

Had X-Men been a consistently awesome series since Claremont's departure, Morrison & Whedon's runs might have gone unnoticed. They would have been what the fans had come to expect from the X-men title. Just more of the same. That they stand out... to this day... speaks to a malaise in fan's regard for the series. They were bored with it. Morrison woke them up with a 2x4 smack to the brain pan. Whedon reminded them why they loved the characters in the first place. They left the X-Men in a better place than where they found it. I think both men deserve the credit they get.

You sir I agree with and also I applaud your communication skills. I had something similar in my brain rattling around and you gave beautiful and articulate voice to it. Thank you very much. :)

Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men's quite overrated if you ask me.

@cattlebattle: When did he try to make beast gay

Oh, this isn't about the X-Men being overrated. nvm

Whedon didn't have a run on Astonishing, Astonishing was Whedon's book. That's why no one else could live up to it. They were tasked with writing Whedon's writing on a book that was sold and bought for his writing while not being Whedon himself, and could never pull it off. It wasn't so much a matter of where he rated. It would be as if DC continued Dark Knight Return's but with a new writer. Despite how well they're writing was in quality or not, it still wouldn't be what the book was advertising. Marvel should have a had subset mini's for each individual writers version of X-Men rather than have them buoy off someone else namesake.

I don't think that either writers were overrated. Like everyone was saying about Grant Morrison's run on X-Men, he brought something new to the table by putting the X-Men in situations they have never been in before and it was actually interesting seeing a X-Men series that focused so much on the X-Men being teachers, which was what I really enjoyed about Morrison's run was the fact that the X-Men are now the teachers and not the students.

Joss Whedon's run on "Astonishing X-Men" was probably my favorite series because he focused so much time on the characters and we get to actually feel how the characters were feeling during those situations. I especially loved the relationships that Joss Whedon wrote during "Astonishing X-Men," especially between Kitty and Colossus since there was so much depth in their relationship and it never felt like they were avoiding the possible conflicts in their relationship to make it work, but instead taking on that conflict and try to resolve it, which I barely see in newer X-Men comics.

I think what Chris Claremont, Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon all brought to the X-Men comics was that they focused so much on the characters' relationships and emotions about the situations rather than just skim through their emotions about the situations at hand and focusing on the characters was what made all three of these writers' runs so memorable. I really do enjoy writing where characters are the focus because I can actually relate so much with the characters.

@CATPANEXE said:

Whedon didn't have a run on Astonishing, Astonishing was Whedon's book. That's why no one else could live up to it. They were tasked with writing Whedon's writing on a book that was sold and bought for his writing while not being Whedon himself, and could never pull it off. It wasn't so much a matter of where he rated. It would be as if DC continued Dark Knight Return's but with a new writer. Despite how well they're writing was in quality or not, it still wouldn't be what the book was advertising. Marvel should have a had subset mini's for each individual writers version of X-Men rather than have them buoy off someone else namesake.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Marvel did all the creators that worked on that book a disservice by not at the very least renaming it.

@Rabbitearsblog: Excellent, excellent post.

@The Dark Huntress: Thanks!

I wish Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman or Frank Miller took on the X-Men for an extended run during their comic book-writing primes.

Whedon left me uninspired with his stories. I don't get what the big deal about him was.

Morrison made some major changes to characters, but all in the name of good writing and story telling (except for that time he turned Magneto into a mass murdering madman). People talk about him not understanding Cyclops, but a) the character had just spent some serious time fused with Apocalypse, b) Claremont probably never intended to have Scott leave Maddie... he was forced by editors who wanted Jean back... but the seed was planted, and his character changed from just uptight to a jerk, to be light with one's language. I think jerk Scott is more interesting anyway. Morrison also made a bigger deal about focusing on the Mutant community, which was amazing, and needed. He never made Beast gay either. That was an extension of Beast's prankster persona, which has always been there. It's really amazing when a guy can make a book with 40 years of canon interesting and different... exciting even.

Meanwhile, Claremont may have created the characters as we know them, and may have manifested some of the best and most memorably arcs and story telling, his dialogue... and worse yet his monologues can be unbearable at times. Maybe they're just dated... but point being, not even he is without his flaws.

Uncanny X-men shaped my view on the entire super hero world. It is where I spent my childhood hours. It is what I have to base all my other Marvel experiences upon. Chris Claremont wrote the book, as far as I am concerned. 
Now, does that mean that all other writers are over or under rated? Not technically.  
It means that all other writers '91 and beyond have over 17 years of writing to stack up against. 
It is like this...  Middle-earth is all peace and happiness, are we to believe that these realms NEVER encounter another disturbance noteworthy of documenting?
So, how would another writer pick up and continue? It would not be well received, no matter how well the writer continued, heck most people have never read The Silmarillion, and that was Tolkien himself.
I think it is the same for the 90's writers. It is very hard to follow a good act. But that does not mean the act in itself is bad.

@The Dark Huntress said:

No, they were just that good.

QFT.

@davelecave said:

@The Dark Huntress said:

No, they were just that good.

QFT.

TRIPLED.

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

Morrison

- I was not a fan of his run, IMO he tried to change too much, too fast, and I just did not like the direction he was taking the book overall

- I have always liked his independent work much better than his Marvel work

Whedon

- His run on Astonishing X-Men started out so well, until the Breakworld arc hit full stride and the book went downhill fast

- His characterization was very good, but the plotlines were shaky at best

@Wattup said:

I wish Alan Moore or Frank Miller.

Just no.

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

@Rabbitearsblog said:

@wavecrest said:

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

I loved Gifted and Unstoppable the best!

I'm in total agreement. My dad got me the Gifted trade paperback for christmas because I kept borrowing it from the library.

I think both Morrison and Whedon had good runs with the X-Men but like many comic book writers not everything they produce is gold and al their work when with X-Men was not great. I mean going back to Claremonts time he created some of he most memorable X-Men story lines ever but if you were to go over all the work he produced on during his run you would notice garbage along with the diamonds. I will say that many X-Men writers have no idea how to write Cyclops. He is reserved, not too excitable and understated in a lot of ways. Somehow over the years this became translated into him being wooden, stiff, and being of a jerk. I am not quite sure when that started but Morrison and Whedon pushed that idea further.

I think both Morrison and Whedon had good runs with the X-Men but like many comic book writers not everything they produce is gold and al their work when with X-Men was not great. I mean going back to Claremonts time he created some of he most memorable X-Men story lines ever but if you were to go over all the work he produced on during his run you would notice garbage along with the diamonds. I will say that many X-Men writers have no idea how to write Cyclops. He is reserved, not too excitable and understated in a lot of ways. Somehow over the years this became translated into him being wooden, stiff, and being of a jerk. I am not quite sure when that started but Morrison and Whedon pushed that idea further.

No, I think Claremont is overrated.

@Rabbitearsblog said:

@wavecrest said:

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

I loved Gifted and Unstoppable the best!

I'm in total agreement. My dad got me the Gifted trade paperback for christmas because I kept borrowing it from the library.

Interesting that people think that Morrison turned Cyclops into a jerk; I think he made him sympathetic. And really Scott has been a jerk to the women in his life many times before. How can you forget him leaving his wife and newborn son to be with resurrected Jean Grey? Real stand up guy there. My big problem was how Marvel kept the sexy bits that Morrison brought to the series (Emma, Stepford Cuckoos) and 86ed everything else (Beak, Angel, the Omega Gang).

As for Joss Whedon, even though his characterizations were spot on, the stories and new characters were boring and derivative. He removed the X-Men from earth, where they face off against mutant and human enemies, and has them face some idiotic alien race? Ugh! He brings Collosus back because he wants to see him get it on with Kitty (yuck). Danger is a stupid concept and Wing and Armor were complete bores with obvious code names. I'm surprised he didn't have Collosus change his name to 'Metal".

I think their respective first arcs, 'E is for Extinction' and 'Gifted' are both classics, but I agree with previous posts that Whedon's run as a whole was derivative and basically a love letter to stories already told. He crafts things magically and his name and style are really accessible to new readers, but he moved the series backwards in a lot of ways. Also, his Emma was pitiful and the beginning of her decline after being a shining star in the X-Books during and post-Morrison.

On the other hand, Morrison really took the books into a new realm and made the books refreshing. However, continuity and personalities were sometimes lost on the way there. On the bright side, I feel like he nailed his main cast (Emma, Jean, Scott, and Beast especially--there has NOT been as nearly a decent writer for Beast since) and his new additions (Angel, Beak, the Cuckoos) were truly extraordinary. His Magneto was dreadful and marked a period where his motives and personality were constantly shifting and largely undefined.

It seems that Morrison at times gets a pass because he changed some things. While some of his changes were good and the xmen needed change after the 90's, it still doesnt excuse some of the screw ups. Of course everything is subjective and Morrison superfanboys will defend him to the end. I still say Morrison is overrated

I think Whedon is overrated.

I disagree with you about Morrison - he did a good job exposing the flaws in the plot construction of most superhero stories, and was cunning enough to do it without the editorial team realizing it until he had left. Even his character, Sublime, was a jab at most superheroics - a bacterial infection resulting in superhumans driven to bombastic displays of aggression is hilarious.

E is for Extinction isn't a classic, it's a pretentious piece of crap with symptoms of insulting one's intelligence.

Whedon wouldn't have bothered with X-Men and at least half of his story ideas were inspired by E Is For Extinction. He readily admits that Morrison's work got him back into the X-Men after the cluster***k that was the '90's. The biggest problem I had with Whedon's run was his insistence on making Kitty the hero of the day. Usually at the expense of every other character. I actively dislike his version of Kitty and his pop psychology Cyclops was underwhelming. Also, Colossus is still a boring character

Beast is gay? Dude dated Trish Tilby. Did I miss something?

I didnt care for Whedon. Morrison I had no problems with

Those were the days

I loved their runs, and plus they can both write a wonderful Emma, so no overrated writers for me

Grant Morrison was one of the few writers to not write Wolverine as a jobber fodder charecter who's only use is to get hit and show how great his healing factor works. His Wolverine was perfect in a way he didn't take front center in all of the storylines and shined as a fighter for mutant kind. He had a certain danger about him that felt like it would be a mistake to mess with him… Like in the fight scene with Cassandra he jumps on her and puts his claws in to letting her know he won't stop fighting….When the Shiar captured the X-Men Him and Beast were slaying left and right to protect their friends….He showed his vulnearable side after he reads his file from Weapon X after everything he's been through he cries out that I was always just a killer.

Overrated, underrated, why can't anyone just be rated?